World Handicap System has created a more level playing field ?
- Thread starter rulefan
- Start date
D-S
Well-known member
This is interesting analysis.
However, it is based on average Stableford points, which although is good data, it does not give the whole competition picture.
It is well known, and stated in the article, that lower handicappers tend to be steadier in their scores and that higher are more erratic. Now that the averages are similar that means that higher handicappers higher scores are higher and their lower ones are lower which means that they win more competitions with scores that are not achieved very often by lower handicappers.
Percentage of competitions won now by category versus pre WHS would be a more interesting statistic as the hope of winning is what makes competitions worth entering for many and playing your best round of recent years and not coming in the top 10 is not fun.
However, it is based on average Stableford points, which although is good data, it does not give the whole competition picture.
It is well known, and stated in the article, that lower handicappers tend to be steadier in their scores and that higher are more erratic. Now that the averages are similar that means that higher handicappers higher scores are higher and their lower ones are lower which means that they win more competitions with scores that are not achieved very often by lower handicappers.
Percentage of competitions won now by category versus pre WHS would be a more interesting statistic as the hope of winning is what makes competitions worth entering for many and playing your best round of recent years and not coming in the top 10 is not fun.
rulefan
Tour Winner
Some years ago the Scottish Union did some research and found
- Category 1 and Category 3 players typically comprise 8% and 40% of a club competition and in a ‘single class’ competition win 10% and 38% of the time.
In a medal all strokes count. So a high capper's medal score is likely to be relatively worse than a low capper's because they do not have the fall back of net double bogey.
- Category 1 and Category 3 players typically comprise 8% and 40% of a club competition and in a ‘single class’ competition win 10% and 38% of the time.
In a medal all strokes count. So a high capper's medal score is likely to be relatively worse than a low capper's because they do not have the fall back of net double bogey.
Last edited:
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
This is also assuming that handicaps are accurate and people have been putting regular cards in.
I think they need to wait a couple more years before grabbing any meaningful analysis from the data.
One of my regular playing partners has recently started putting more cards in , there were many reasons why he could only get 5 in last year, and his 20th score is from 2 years ago.
And plenty of people put in fewer cards than that.
That has to skew the accuracy of the HIs and, therefore, the accuracy of the data
I think they need to wait a couple more years before grabbing any meaningful analysis from the data.
One of my regular playing partners has recently started putting more cards in , there were many reasons why he could only get 5 in last year, and his 20th score is from 2 years ago.
And plenty of people put in fewer cards than that.
That has to skew the accuracy of the HIs and, therefore, the accuracy of the data
Its good to see that confirmed. I think statisically, it was perfectly predicatable that such a leveling had to happen as a result of whs. So it is a better system.
I think much of the grievance from lower players that they are now less competitive, is coming from the fact that they didnt know they had an unfair advantage before. The are winning less - but that is a good thing. But some are reading less competitive as being unfairly less competitive - when in fact the reality is that they are now fairly less compeitive - or correctly competitive.
I think much of the grievance from lower players that they are now less competitive, is coming from the fact that they didnt know they had an unfair advantage before. The are winning less - but that is a good thing. But some are reading less competitive as being unfairly less competitive - when in fact the reality is that they are now fairly less compeitive - or correctly competitive.
YandaB
Newbie
I did some analysis of our club compettions comparing 2018 and 2022 so far. I have made it percentages of wins to allow a comparison (109 comps in 2018 and 60 in 2022) and it is clear to me that the "losers" are 0-10 handicappers, though the quote marks are because it really just makes it all a little more balanced I think:
There is a clear rise in winners with a handicap of over 30 this year but the numbers are quite small so could be regarded as statistically insignificant.
There is a clear rise in winners with a handicap of over 30 this year but the numbers are quite small so could be regarded as statistically insignificant.
D
Deleted member 29109
Guest
It would be interesting to see results based on proper medal golf not stablefords.
Personally I think a system that slightly favours a better player is a good thing.
All this is doing is confirming there is no point trying to get better and we’ll see even more HI manipulation than we do now.
Personally I think a system that slightly favours a better player is a good thing.
All this is doing is confirming there is no point trying to get better and we’ll see even more HI manipulation than we do now.
YandaB
Newbie
For our club it would appear that the 0-5's are still ahead just alot less than before. Our Net medal scores appear to be worse this season:
That makes no sense. The point of getting better is to play better.
The point of handicapped golf is that absolute score has no relevance. Everyone starts with a handicap that levels the field, as whs seems to be achieving, and so relative best score wins. A distortion favouring lower handicaps is exactly that, a distortion - neither absolute nor relative.
If you prize best absolute, then handicapped golf isnt for you. Play scratch competitions.
Backache
Assistant Pro
A personal belief (and I know its not widely held) is that the handicap system is a really good way of making matchplay a fairly level playing field but that stroke play should be played primarily to find out who is the best golfer or how you are doing personally against your previous outings . Yes you can handicap large fields but the results seldom satisfy anyone.
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
I would disagree somewhat here.
Years ago 42/44 pts would win a comp and a good day for a low man you could compete with that. Just.
Now comps are won with 48/50 pts and I don’t know and have never met a low man who has scored that.
D
Deleted member 30522
Guest
Yup, sadly I've never been able to find that research posted online, but the figures did back up that lower handicaps won more than they should do in an equal system, it's just that as there were fewer of them, people didn;t see it that way as they won less
doublebogey7
Head Pro
Sorry but this analysis simply does not provide any evidence that the WHS has levelled up the field in competitions. If anything, it points in the other direction. We all know that higher handicaped players are less consistent than those with a lower handicap. Meaning that in a system where average net scores across the handicap range are equal, scores for the higher handicap will appear at the very top and bottom of an average competition. Therefore winners will mostly come from the higher handicap, as will the wooden spoon.
rulefan
Tour Winner
The Section "Myths and Misconceptions was removed from the CONGU website prior to the 2019 issue.
jim8flog
Journeyman Pro
This got me interested to look at the history of just 2 senior comps each year since 2018 played in August where I play. Of course just a small sample and it does not show course conditions. From it it shows that the winning score has not really changed that much and that the overall winner tends to favour over 20s handicaps. There were no overall winners in the single figure bracket
2018
48 points 27 Hcp
45 points 13 Hcp
2019
42 points 27 Hcp
42 points 14 Hcp
2020
42 points 19 Hcp
40 points 23 Hcp
2021
50 points 24 Hcp
43 points 24 Hcp
2022
46 points 26 Hcp
44 points 27 Hcp
In the same comps playing off around 10 I played to between 34 and 38 points.
2018
48 points 27 Hcp
45 points 13 Hcp
2019
42 points 27 Hcp
42 points 14 Hcp
2020
42 points 19 Hcp
40 points 23 Hcp
2021
50 points 24 Hcp
43 points 24 Hcp
2022
46 points 26 Hcp
44 points 27 Hcp
In the same comps playing off around 10 I played to between 34 and 38 points.
2blue
Journeyman Pro
I have to say that in the last 2 years the greatest manipulation I've observed is with the single-figure guys not putting cards in when their game is not there or it's bad weather. It's hardly surprising that they struggle to be competitive as it's more than likely that they are on the wrong H/cap due to protecting it & being absolutely scared of going up to something realistic for where they are most of the time.
In the past Reductions Only would protect them a lot of the time in Scratch Events & they now must feel very vulnerable now that safety net has gone.
I have them somewhere. Ill post if I dig them out.
D
Deleted member 30522
Guest
To be fair, senior comps tend to have very few single digit players, and yes such a small sample size if not going to prove anything
The clubs with cases of 44+, and into the 50s stableford are the problem, for reason unknown. There is clearly some issue there that needs to be resolved, before pcc effectiveness can really be assessed. Of course, if a significant portion of the field is exceeding 40 sble, then no pcc should apply. But the problem is in the big scores. Get to the root of that first.
D
Deleted member 30522
Guest
Like CSS before it, how much under handicap a single score is makes no difference, it's how many in the field are doing so
Similar threads
